Select a region
The States-owned development company building new office blocks at the Esplanade has threatened to go to court to preserve the secrecy of documents that they have been ordered to hand over to an inquiry.
A States committee has ruled that the States of Jersey Development Company (SOJDC) must release the files to a Scrutiny Panel reviewing the finance centre development and has given them seven days to comply.
But the company says that the non-disclosure agreements that the panel would have to sign are not enough – they say that they are taking legal advice about a court challenge to the decision, because disclosing the documents risks placing sensitive information in the public domain.
Yesterday, the Privileges and Procedures Committee announced that it had unanimously backed the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel’s argument over that of the SOJDC, and had given the company seven days to allow the panel to review the paperwork that they want – including the pre-let agreement with UBS, the funding agreement between SOJDC and HSBC who have lent them the money to carry out the scheme, and the construction contract between SOJDC and Camerons.
They have also been ordered to produce “any side letters and other documentation”.
The terms of the disclosure order mean that the panel will not be able to take away or copy the documents, and that the content of the documents may not be disclosed to anyone.
The SOJDC say that the decision has potentially far-reaching implications, and have noted that Camerons say that they would not have tendered for the work if they had known that the confidential information in the report would be disclosed to politicians.
In a statement, the SOJDC said: “The ramifications of this decision go far beyond the Jersey Development Company, as it sets a precedent whereby all States owned companies could be forced to provide commercially sensitive information to individuals without any assurance of confidentiality.
“Given the serious ramifications of this decision and the precedent it sets for the future, the Board of Directors will be taking further advice from their legal advisers with regard to the possibility of a Judicial Review of this decision.”
Comments
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.
Once your comment has been submitted, it won’t appear immediately. There is no need to submit it more than once. Comments are published at the discretion of Bailiwick Publishing, and will include your username.
I wonder what could that be, surely not corruption not in this above board and honest little bailiwick, our hard working and totally incorruptible politicians would not allow it.
If there is nothing to hide make it all public virtually everyone in Jersey would like to know how this wonderful project ever got off the ground in today's financial uncertainty.
If on the other hand they do have something to hide well just carry on go to court keep it secret and we the people of this sorry little island will sit back and take it AGAIN.
Whatever happened to the Jersey that I grew up in????????
The question needs to be asked why has the treasury Minister Alan Maclean not instructed SoJDc to comply with the states order or in fact taken the documents to scrutiny himself. If somewhere in the small print the SoJDC think they can do as they please then Alan Maclean as treasurer should demand a dividend of £125 million to be paid within one week.
That would bring Mr Henry and his out of control quango back to reality.
Remember the States were told only the states could build unique grade A office space, and now they are competing with the private sector also building Grade A offices,
The states should not be competing with the private sector especially the SoJDc with its historic dismal financial returns to the States which would be a failure in the commercial world.
This was understood by PPC in their decision on whether Scrutiny should have copies of these documents. At Paragraph 64 of their decision, they state: "PPC accepts that SoJDC, UBS, HSBC and Camerons have legitimate concerns in relation to preserving the confidentiality of the contents of the documents sought by the Summons and it did not agree with the submission made by the CSSP that the commercial sensitivity of such documents was less than those involved in the case of Veolia."
Whilst PPC has gone some way to provide protection to JDC, in that Scrutiny are not allowed copies or take photographs of the documents and can only take notes, JDC did not feel this went far enough. Scrutiny's advisors EY have already seen all of these documents as they agreed to sign a legally binding confidentiality agreement. Scrutiny however refuse to sign a similar document and so the Board was forced to make an initial challenge which it is now considering whether to take further.
P.64 of the PPC decision in relation to Scrutiny reviewing JDC's confidential papers states: "the PPC accepts that SoJDC, UBS, HSBC and Camerons have legitimate concerns in relation to preserving the confidentiality of the contents of the documents sought by the Summons and it did not agree with the submission made by the CSSP that the commercial sensitivity of such documents was less than those involved in the case of Veolia." PPC therefore has recognised JDC's concerns and tried to accommodate the position. The Board of JDC are now considering whether the the PPC decision goes far enough to protect the confidential information and whether they remain exposed to potential litigation from those parties that it has contracted with.